logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나549
매매대금반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

Reasons

1. In fact, the Defendants acquired 6,714 square meters prior to the Hongcheon-gun F in auction (J) and completed the registration of ownership transfer by having a co-ownership share of 1/2 on September 23, 2013, respectively.

On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs purchased 1,000 square meters from the Defendants’ land in the Hancheon-gun Hongcheon-gun from the Defendants on the following terms:

(F) Under the following, real estate is indicated as “G” but is a clerical error in “F”, although Party F 1 (Real Estate Sales Contract) is indicated as “G.”

Before a site: KRW 20,000, KRW 90,000: Contract deposit: KRW 20,000,000: 7,000 won (it shall be paid on November 30, 2013), but it shall be made with the current status.

On October 7, 2013, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 20,000 to the Defendants the down payment. On October 21, 2013, the instant sales contract did not have any provision on intermediate payment, and paid KRW 20,000 to the Defendants the intermediate payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8, Eul 1, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserts that the subsequent supplement of appeal by the Defendants is unlawful.

The following is the case where the parties are unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to them, and the case where the parties cannot complete the procedural acts in this context “reasons not attributable to them” refers to the case where the parties cannot comply with the period even though they had due care to do the procedural acts even though they had to do so.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy, original copy, etc. of the complaint was served by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and in such a case, the defendant falls under the case where it is impossible to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus two weeks after the cause ceases to exist.

arrow